baekenough/omcustom:agora

Agora: Multi-LLM Adversarial Consensus

3개 이상의 LLM(Claude, Codex/GPT, Gemini)이 경쟁적으로 설계/문서의 결함을 찾고, 만장일치 합의에 도달할 때까지 반복하는 적대적 교차 검증 스킬.

Prerequisites

• codex-exec skill (Codex/GPT 호출)
• gemini-exec skill (Gemini 호출)
• Agent Teams enabled (CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1) or Agent tool available

Usage

/agora docs/design.md                          # Default: 3 LLMs, unlimited rounds
/agora docs/design.md --rounds 10              # Max 10 rounds
/agora docs/design.md --severity-threshold HIGH # Exit when no HIGH+ findings
/agora docs/design.md --models claude,codex     # 2 LLMs only

Workflow

Phase 1: Setup

1. Read the target document
2. Create Agent Team: TeamCreate("agora-review")
3. Create review tasks per focus area

Phase 2: Spawn Reviewers (parallel)

Spawn 3 reviewers as Agent Team members:

Agent(name: "claude-critic", model: opus, effort: max)
  → 20-point deep adversarial review
  
Agent(name: "codex-critic", model: opus)
  → Invoke Skill(codex-exec) for GPT perspective + independent Claude analysis
  
Agent(name: "gemini-critic", model: opus)  
  → Invoke Skill(gemini-exec) for Gemini perspective + independent Claude analysis

Phase 3: Independent Review

Each reviewer performs adversarial review with this template:

For EACH review point:
### Round N: [Topic]
**Severity**: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
**Flaw**: [Specific, concrete problem description]
**Evidence**: [Why this is real, not theoretical]
**Impact**: [What happens if not addressed]
**Counter-argument**: [Best case FOR the current design]
**Verdict**: KEEP / MODIFY / REJECT

Review areas (adapt to document type):

• Architecture fundamentals
• Component/service design
• Data architecture
• Security & resilience
• Feasibility & deployment
• Testing strategy
• Operational complexity

Phase 4: Cross-Review (Peer-to-Peer)

Each reviewer sends findings to the other two via SendMessage.

Counter-review template:

1. Which findings do you AGREE with? (and why)
2. Which findings do you DISAGREE with? (evidence-based rebuttal)
3. What did they MISS that you caught?
4. What did they catch that you MISSED?
5. SEVERITY adjustments — upgrade or downgrade with justification

Phase 5: Synthesis

Team lead aggregates all findings:

UNANIMOUS CRITICAL: [findings all 3 agreed on]
STRONG AGREEMENT:   [findings 2/3 agreed on]
SPLIT DECISIONS:    [findings with disagreement + resolution]

Determine verdict:

• BUILD: No CRITICAL, no unresolved HIGH
• BUILD WITH CHANGES: No CRITICAL, HIGH findings have accepted mitigations
• REDESIGN: Any unresolved CRITICAL findings
• ABANDON: Fundamental concept is flawed

Phase 6: Loop (if REDESIGN)

1. Team lead produces/delegates redesign addressing ALL critical findings
2. New version sent to ALL reviewers: SendMessage(to: "*")
3. Reviewers re-review → GOTO Phase 4
4. Repeat until EXIT criteria met

Phase 7: Exit (consensus reached)

When ALL reviewers agree BUILD or BUILD WITH CHANGES:

1. Produce final consensus report
2. Write to .claude/outputs/sessions/{date}/agora-{topic}-{time}.md
3. Shut down team: SendMessage(to: "*", message: {type: "shutdown_request"})

Reviewer Principles

1. NEUTRAL — no reviewer has home team advantage
2. COMPETITIVE — find flaws others missed
3. CRITICAL — "fewer than 5 CRITICAL flaws = not looking hard enough"
4. EVIDENCE-BASED — every finding cites specific evidence
5. CONSTRUCTIVE — every flaw includes recommended fix
6. CONVERGENT — goal is consensus, not endless disagreement

Consensus Criteria

| Condition | Required | |-----------|----------| | CRITICAL findings resolved | ALL | | HIGH findings resolved or accepted | ALL | | All reviewers rate BUILD or BUILD WITH CHANGES | YES | | Cross-review disagreements resolved | ALL |

Output Format

# Agora Consensus Report

## Document: [path]
## Rounds: [N]
## Reviewers: [list with LLM models used]

## Verdict: [BUILD / BUILD WITH CHANGES / REDESIGN]

## Unanimous Findings
| # | Finding | Severity | All 3 Agree |
|---|---------|----------|-------------|

## Required Changes Before Build
1. [change with source reviewer]
2. ...

## Accepted Risks
- [finding accepted with justification]

## Unique Contributions Per Reviewer
| Reviewer | Findings Others Missed |
|----------|----------------------|

## Process Metrics
- Rounds: N
- Total findings: N
- Cross-adopted: N
- Severity upgrades: N
- Severity downgrades: N
- Disagreements raised: N
- Disagreements resolved: N/N

Configuration

# Default settings
agora:
  max_rounds: unlimited       # Set --rounds to limit
  severity_threshold: HIGH    # EXIT when no findings >= threshold
  models:
    - claude (opus, max effort)
    - codex (via codex-exec skill)
    - gemini (via gemini-exec skill)
  review_points: 20           # Per reviewer
  cross_review: true          # Peer-to-peer sharing
  auto_redesign: true         # Auto-produce redesign on REDESIGN verdict

Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Why Wrong | Correct | |-------------|-----------|---------| | Single LLM review | Misses blind spots | 3+ LLMs find complementary flaws | | No cross-review | Reviewers don't challenge each other | Peer-to-peer sharing surfaces disagreements | | Accepting first BUILD | May miss edge cases | Loop until ALL agree | | Ignoring split decisions | Unresolved disagreements fester | Resolve every split with evidence | | Push for consensus too fast | Premature agreement | Let reviewers challenge freely |